[KMag]

Personhood simply isn't a scientific question. There's no objective scientific criteria for personhood.

Maybe it's purely a legal question, but that's a problem given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.

If it's not scientific, not legal, and not axiomatic, then what is it?

[jimkleiber]

I'd argue mostly emotional, us projecting our different emotional experiences on each other and wanting them to feel how we feel regarding the same things.

I also believe it has scientific and legal and axiomatic components, just feel quite confident it has to do more with the fear, anger, guilt, shame, and other emotions we feel and attach to things.

[KMag]

I'd agree with that, but unfortunately, that makes it even harder for maximalists on either side to communicate.

[jimkleiber]

Lol I agree. I think people who take maximalist positions often speak the most distantly about how they feel, using a lot of second or third person pronouns and focusing on how people certainly are and not how they might feel.

[KMag]

Part of that may be that feelings are a very difficult basis for constructive conversation if you disagree strongly. Even if you feel strongly, presenting your position as not emotionally based at least helps move the conversation forward.

[jimkleiber]

I've seen that often when I say how I'm feeling, like actually feeling, and the other person does as well, it can help me feel more connected to them and as a result maybe less connected to the belief/idea/preference I held before the conversation. Not always, sometimes I still feel very adamant about a position and yet I tend to open a bit to their humanity.